Replies

Is it perpetually your purpose to answer a question with a question?

I asked the question and posted excerpts of various Darwin writings so that you might see that the strange juxtaposition of metaphysical speculation and negative theology that Darwin posited as confirmation (or potential refutation) of his theory does not meet your stated criteria of what constitutes scientific enterprise.

Darwin's whole program was to exclude teleology from science. By "Natural selection", he meant entirely natural processes, unguided and without purpose or design. That is why his suppositions and speculations often amounted to nothing more than, ""God wouldn't have done it that way so natural selection must be true." As illustrated by:

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

For clearly there are indeed countless examples of evolution for mutual benefit in the complex ecologies of tropical rainforests. Of course, "mutual benefit" and "exclusive good" are not identical concepts.

The irony, though, being that "mutual benefit", and "exclusive good", are not scientific statements, are not derived from science, and do not comport with the presuppositions of evolution and natural selection.

Cordially,

"By "Natural selection", he meant entirely natural processes, unguided and without purpose or design. That is why his suppositions and speculations often amounted to nothing more than, ""God wouldn't have done it that way so natural selection must be true." As illustrated by:

"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed
 for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory,
 for such could not have been produced through natural selection."

Your first sentence is true. The second sentence is speculative and inappropriately applied.

Darwin's critique of his own work suggested that a Creator might occasionally be expected to co-create organisms with mutual dependencies; a flowers-and-bees and chicken-or-egg conundrum in one pretty package.

He admitted that finding such a situation would indicate that his concept was faulty in that regard. However, no such situation has been observed. Perhaps you can enlighten us with your observation that "one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species" which would, by Darwin's own admission, show his theory to be incorrect.